Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Fri Jul 12 00:06:03 EDT 2019
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
Technical Essay # 75 - FAF 12 April 1992
.ce Polarity Examples
The technique I call Polarity Clearing is probably what I've made the most remarkable and
permanent changes with on my clients over the last year or so. However, in teaching it to
others I realized that it might be a little foggy which exact situations it would apply to. So, I'd
like to give a few examples from sessions I've done on people recently.
First of all, Polarity Clearing is about integrating opposite parts of the person. It is part of a
bigger group of techniques that pre-suppose that the person has as part of him smaller
somewhat conscious units. These units can be regarded as valences, identities, entities,
circuits, parts, viewpoints, or attention units. Sometimes one of these choices seem more
appropriate then the others, sometimes you can just pick any approach.
Polarity Clearing becomes appropriate when there is a type of behavior the person does that
has a whole personality package to go along with it, and that appears to exclude or compete
with another type of behavior and personality. It would be a recurring thing, something the
person does either all the time, regularly, or in certain situations. It should include feeling
and/or action, it shouldn't just be a thought or idea. It must somehow appear as being
causative, something the person does, not just an effect situation or somatic.
What will be available first will often be the part that the client currently perceives as
unwanted, inadequate, or annoying. It is not always like that, but often the person will have
the idea that that part of them needs to go. They don't like it, so they come to you to "get it cut
An important rule here is then that any part of the person is useful for something. It must
underneath the surface have some sort of positive function it tries to perform for the person.
He might not realize it, but some of his positive qualities and abilities are locked up in that
part. However, because the part is lacking other qualities or because its purpose got
sidetracked or outdated somehow, it currently does something that isn't particularly welcome.
The philosophical basis here is a variant of "People are basically good". We could say that
any part of them would also be there for basically a good and positive reason. If we can get
down to those good and positive reasons, then any conflicts would tend to dissolve or
become very easy to manage.
Also, we assume the person's natural state to be whole, complete, balanced, and free. We
assume that he can't really loose that, he can only temporarily fragment himself and forget
about some of the fragments. So, if he has a part of himself that is not quite optimum, and that
has limited qualities, then we know right away that the lacking qualities are found in the
"opposite" part that will inevitably be there. If we get them to work better together or to
integrate completely, then he will probably be better off.
A client yesterday complained about always being a "Victim" and wanting to get rid of that
aspect of herself. I asked "So, you have a part of yourself that is being a victim?" She says
yes, and that creates a little separation that makes it easier to clear. We discuss what the
victim part of her is doing. Then I ask "Is there a part of you that is opposite to the victim part?"
She says she isn't victim in certain work situations. We agree on calling that the "Creative"
part of her. We then discuss the qualities that each side has or is lacking. The Creative side
has great ideas and knows what to do with them, but isn't persistent. As a matter of fact the
first thing she had said in the session was that somebody had suggested that she needed
more discipline, and she tended to agree. Now, it took some work to have her realize the
Victim part had anything good about it. However, she had said that she had had it practically
all her life. I asked her if that didn't mean that it was persistent, at being victim? She admitted
that. And I inquired if that wasn't a type of discipline. After a moment she realized that, yes,
indeed we could say that was a kind of discipline. She is kind of surprised to realize that. We
then work at what each side can use its other's qualities for. She finds that if the Victim side is
more creative it can use its experiences constructively, and if the creative side knows how it is
to be victim it can be more effective. She realizes that this dichotomy is very valuable for her
work, and she wouldn't really want it collapsed. She prefers to keep them as two sides, but in
much closer communication. She is very happy about it, has several new abilities, and is
certain that she will make big changes in her life. This whole thing took 40 minutes. It was her
fourth session, with major life changes after each of the previous sessions. She is very good
at visualizing things in detail, and that opens the door to very quick results with processes like
Another client this morning. She originated that she is "Nervous" most of the time. I noticed
that it seemed connected to work, and things she otherwise was excited about or good at.
Does she have a part of her that is nervous? Yes, but that is most of the time. OK, but she
does have a part of her that isn't nervous? Yes, but it is very small and weak. Still she was
actually asking to get rid of the nervous part of her! I didn't oblige her on that, but I inquired
about what good qualities was in the nervous part. After the customary initial resistance to the
idea, she confesses that it has her strength and power and it really gets things done. The
relaxed part is feeling more calm, but isn't strong and doesn't get much done. We have them
communicate with each other, learn to accept each other, teach each other something. The
parts become much more friendly and exchange information. I then have her hold out her
hands with the palms up and visualize a part in each hand. Then having her tell about the
difference between them now. Then I ask her to put her hands together and fold them. And
immediately I change my use of language to pre-supposing that they are now integrated.
Now, with the parts integrated so that she can be both strong and relaxed, calm and powerful,
how is that different now? That usually works well if the person is ready for it. Here it did bring
in better indicators, but it didn't totally click for her. She still had some trouble thinking of the
qualities as integrated. She has a somatic of nervousness also that would tend to keep it from
fully working. We did some other work on that, and will continue to do that in the next session.
I include this here to express that it doesn't always work perfectly in the first shot, but that is in
no way a failure. It fit the polarity model, we worked with it and got a much improved result,
but there is more to it.
Sometimes you go through the polarity steps and get ready to integrate the parts, but
something keeps them apart. If it is not apparent what, I would ask: "What is keeping them
apart?" Most often it would be either a service fac or a somatic. The service fac would be
some sort of computation that would imply that it wouldn't be correct to integrate the parts or
have them get along. That could be a more than usual insistence on a type of behavior being
"bad" without apparent ability to look at it. You 2WC for the computation, it is usually quite
readily available. Handle with standard brackets. The other common case is that it is a
somatic that appears when the sides are moved closer to each other. For example I had a
client that got claustrophobic nausea when she tried to push the sides together. The somatic
is then dealt with with incident clearing. Then you re-check if they can integrate. Sometimes
one chain will take care of it, sometimes it is a more long term thing that requires a number of
incidents or chains. The client with claustrophobia took a number of chains over several
sessions, with much improvement, but the sides are still not quite integrated. It happened to
be a major focus going through all parts of her life.
One person said he felt he held himself back, that he somehow had a bad boy inside, and
therefore he didn't deserve to do too well. He quickly admitted to having both a "Good" and a
"Bad" side. That is not the perfect titles, but that is how he saw it at first. If we can avoid
labelling any of the sides in negative terms, that is best. However, that is usually not how the
person sees it at first. Anyway, his "Good" side was creative, open, angelic, in tune with God.
His "Bad" side was aggressive and powerful, getting things done in a direct manner. He
wasn't aware of visual perceptions on these parts at all, but we could get them to talk to each
other, getting them to accept and love each other, and learn from each other. When they were
pretty well in ARC I used the trick of putting the hands together as above. The two parts
integrated and he felt a strong rush of energy. He felt that he could now use all the qualities
together or as he chooses. This was his very first session.
Another client was very fragmented and has various kinds of addictive behavior, such as
overeating. That fits in with polarity clearing, but often isn't a quick resolution. With an
addictive type of person it is often the problem to get opposite parts "in-session" at the same
time, since they are more forcefully separated. We did a polarity of Vulnerable and
Masculine. She actually had a totally different beingness to go with each side. Each one had
a different voice and different mannerism, bordering on multiple personality, but not quite.
There I was actually talking with the parts directly, instead of through the separation we can
usually establish at first. However, gradually as we got the parts to get along better, she
became able to separate from them instead of being them. Eventually they integrated into
one way of being, with the qualities from both. The result produced immediate positive
changes in her life. However, she had much more where it came from to work on in the
Another person had a Humble/Aggressive polarity. She had regarded anger as being bad
and unwanted, and had tried to be just a sweet and loving person. However, a lot of her
power was in the aggressive part. She gradually realized that and started taking
responsibility for that side too. They integrated, and since then she has become able to be
angry when necessary and to face up to it, instead of suppressing it.
Most people will readily accept the philosophy of integrating polarities once they try it the first
time. It usually takes some 2WC persuasion to get them to accept the "negative" parts, but
once they realize that their qualities are split, it quickly makes sense to bring them more
together. However, a few people might need some discussion of the theory before they are
ready to do it. So, a quick explanation and drawing of wholes splitting up into polarities would
generally do it. I haven't met anybody who had anything against the idea once they
understood it. Personally I find it to be best form to do it without any kind of prior
indoctrination, but there should not be a big problem in going through it first. Anyway,
understanding the philosophical basics here usually gives a big realization in itself, and is
very empowering for people. It makes them realize that they are cause, they are whole, and
they have a lot of abilities and qualities.
The people I have mostly used Polarity Clearing on are new people. However, I have found it
to work very well on advanced people also. The principle here is actually a very high level
spiritual basic along the lines of the factors. I have used them solo on myself with good
results. The parts I have integrated have been taken care of permanently with no side effects
of restimulating anything else.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 12 00:06:03 EDT 2019
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
More information about the Clear-L